Sharkey Ward

[flycookie]

FlyCookie: These brilliant artworks are by Anna-Louise Felstead.

How surprising that RN actually used an ounce of intelligence to bring in an outsider to lend both panorama and focus in putting the work of HMS Illustrious in a visual context.

This from from the bio on her website (URL after the text).

+++Her work focuses on people within environments, ranging from day to day images of characters drinking coffee in Soho, to models being hastily prepared for the catwalks at London Fashion Week.

She is inspired by unusual places and issue-based subjects and enjoys putting herself in situations where she wouldn't normally be. Previous projects included a two week stint aboard HMS Cornwall with the Royal Navy, where Anna-Louise documented scenes from a military life at sea which resulted in her first solo show.

Since graduating from The Royal College of Art in 2003 she was invited back, and joined HMS Illustrious for three days in the North Sea after which she presented a show of the work at the Naval Club in Mayfair in October 2005.

Delighted by her style that brings human warmth and accessibility to such hard objects as aircraft carriers and Harrier jump jets, the Royal Navy then commissioned Anna-Louise to produce artwork for their promotional literature.+++

www.alfelstead.com/

Obviously, giant first class copies/prints (whatever the right word is) are available for purchase from the website. No, this isn't an advertisement, but me trying to play fair with posting someone else's original art.

Here we go. Captions are the artist's titles.


FLYCO


Galley


Harrier4


Wings


Red Harrier


Map (FC - should be 'chart'?)


Harrier 2


Nosmo


Nose

FlyCookie: And here's the artist!



If these JPG images are too heavy for easy viewing, then say so and I'll reduce their file sizes.

[flycookie]

FlyCookie: Wasn't going to post these ones as I thought it might be too many. Changed my mind. They're too good to go unseen.


Bing


Bridge


Currentops


Harrier 3

[flycookie]

sinbad said:

For my tired eyes I have to 'zoom' the browser IE7 to even have a chance to read "Beware of rotors and jet blast" on my screen. And so they should be beware... ;D English is the language of aviation, NO? I guess the French try to differ but we ignore them resolutely.

+++ As to whether or not the multinational Carrier Strike Wing in the Adriatic was a success, we should perhaps rely on the verdict of Lieutenant Nick Geneux of the Royal Navy. He told me: "You don't have to look any further than the feact that during Noble Midas, we had a French Fighter Controller directing a United States Marine Corps pilot in a Spanish AV8B Harrier on to Royal Navy deck, to see can be achieved when sharing best practice with other nations on a daily basis." +++


At one stage three languages, being English, Spanish and Italian were used simultaneously on the flight deck and in the hangar.

Quote and info from current issue of WIFR, which is mercifully Sharkey-free this month. My secretary scored a $20 lunch (out of my own wallet) for scribbling the above quote straight from the mag. Me part with $12 for a magazine? Dream ON....!!!!

[FlyNavy]

FlyCookieScrooge McDuck? & my "FRENCH" (bad language) is poifect thank you very much! Spanish? QUE?

[flycookie]

www.economist.com/world/britain/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=10700598


Rusty Lusty


HMS Illustrious

Feb 14th 2008
From The Economist print edition


Britain is struggling to preserve its hard power


POOR old “Lusty”. HMS Illustrious, Britain's 25-year-old aircraft carrier, all too often sails without Harrier jump-jets because they are busy in Afghanistan. In the past few weeks, moreover, the flagship has had trouble putting to sea at all.

On January 21st Lusty set out from Portsmouth to lead a multinational flotilla in the Indian Ocean, but soon returned to repair broken refrigerators. On February 8th she had to put in at Portland, some 70 miles farther west, to fix a problem in separating oil from bilge water. And on February 13th a faulty propellor-shaft had to be mended.

Her escort ships also had troubles, not least an unresponsive air-defence system. The Royal Navy plays down these difficulties, but it is already clear that the carrier will miss an exercise in Oman this month involving the precious Harriers. Illustrious is meant to be Britain's high-readiness ship; if she cannot be ready in time for a long-planned deployment, some ask, how can she respond quickly to a crisis?




For commanders, such embarrassments are evidence of the hollowing-out of the navy as defence spending becomes tighter. The “senior service” has lost warships at a relentless pace since the end of the cold war. The hulks of dead or dying vessels litter Portsmouth harbour. Spending to maintain those that remain in service is also being squeezed: ships sailing to quieter zones are often stripped of equipment and sailors so that those deploying to the Persian Gulf can be fully kitted out. The government, though, tells a rosier story: defence spending is rising, shipbuilding is booming and the navy will get two new “super-carriers” thrice as big as Illustrious. These will carry the stealthy new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) that is being built with America and others.

Such ambitions come at a cost. The new carriers have enlarged an already big hole in the defence budget. Despite plans to increase real expenditure by 1.5% a year, defence sources say there is an “eye-watering” shortfall of £500m next year, rising to about £2 billion in 2011-12. On February 20th service chiefs and civil servants will try to agree on a savings plan for approval by Des Browne, the double-hatted secretary for defence and for Scotland. Budgeting involves grim inter-service fighting at the best of times, but the current round is the toughest in decades. About £2 billion must be taken out of the £12 billion annual equipment budget over the next two years in order to balance the books while paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and improving soldiers' pay and conditions

Britain is still fighting two wars on peacetime budgets. It needs to decide whether to increase defence spending to match its global ambitions or accept the permanent loss of some military capabilities. Instead, to put off the reckoning, ministers will probably delay the new carriers by a year or more, chop a few more ships and submarines, push back new transport aircraft, downgrade future armoured vehicles and skimp on maintenance.

All this distorts the military posture. It creates an even bigger hole in the budget from 2010, sucks out funds to keep old kit going, increases the unit costs of delayed and reduced future equipment, and penalises those at the end of the procurement pipeline. On current plans, for example, the air force is taking full delivery of 232 Typhoon jets, but it is doubtful that Britain will buy the 150 JSFs it would like.

The cost of the JSF is rising, and the jump-jet version ordered by Britain has yet to fly. The navy is paying the price for the carriers: its eight existing destroyers will probably be replaced by just six of the new Type 45 ships. The attack submarine fleet is likely to shrink from the current nine to six new Astute-class vessels. Nobody knows what will replace the 17 frigates. Britain could one day find itself with two new carriers, but too few escorts to protect them and not enough planes. They may sail, but will they be able to fight? The days of Lusty, for all her problems, may yet come to be seen as a golden age.

Copyright © 2008 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group.

[FlyNavy]

I blame 'Sharkey Ward' for this. ;D

[flycookie]

FlyCookie: Nah, FlyNavy, I think you would be better off getting radar-lock on know-nothing civil servants in Whitehall.

This from the Financial Times.

Who knows, if the RAF sees its own pool of the planned 150 UK F-35Bs at risk, it might actually speak for the RN, and that would confound Commander Sharkey to nth degree.


We must question the case for aircraft carriers

By Michael Quinlan

Published: February 20 2008 02:00 | Last updated: February 20 2008 02:00

The defence budget is in deeper trouble than at any time since Labour came to power. But so are the general public finances, so the Treasury will not come to the rescue. In such situations, squeeze-and-postpone never suffices. Nettles have to be grasped - the sooner, the better.

Ministers must surely take a hard look at large programmes where costs are not yet too far committed. There may well be several of these. But one that stands out is the plan for two big aircraft carriers to deploy joint Royal Navy and Royal Air Force combat aircraft. If the case for these has been rigorously tested in Whitehall, little has emerged to outside view. The Commons defence committee, though keenly interested in the procurement arrangements, has scarcely attempted deeper scrutiny. There has been no public debate as there was over the Trident force.

Britain cannot afford everything that might conceivably come in handy one day. Defence planning has to make choices that limit what we can do. But with direct military threat a remote possibility, almost everything we take on far from home is ultimately optional. Do big carriers give us choices that other forces do not and that are wide, important and likely to warrant the costs?

Carriers are an expensive way of providing a modest amount of air power. Like all forces, they have limitations. They are more vulnerable than airfields and harder to repair after damage, even if not sunk. Against serious opposition much of their effort goes into defending themselves, and they need a protective entourage. Even then, a single carrier is at severe risk within range of enemy air power (or missiles, or submarines). It cannot give much if any support if the operational theatre is deep inland. Two carriers cannot guarantee, as a basis for political commitment, the timely availability of one in the right place. A distinguished admiral has said that there is a case for three or none, but not two.

Carriers can support land forces where no airfields are available or deployment problems prevent other combat aircraft getting there. Recovering the Falklands would have been impossible without them. But the -scenario where carriers are essential is still narrow. If the US is engaged (and the government does not plan for big intervention operations without that) success cannot turn on a British carrier contribution alongside far greater US carrier power, and our involvement can take other forms at least as welcome militarily and politically.

Without the US, an operation dependent upon carriers yet not too tough for us has to fit a tight specification. Land forces must have gone in without an airfield for deployment and supply. They must need combat air support, but not more than a carrier can provide after allowance for its own defence. The operational location must be within range of carrier-based aircraft. The task must be one that cannot be done, in the 2020s and 2030s, by systems such as unmanned aircraft that do not need a big flight-deck. The adversary's striking power must not be too much for the carrier. And the operation must be so important to Britain that we cannot stand aside, as we have done from many conflicts.

No one can prove that this scenario could never arise. But against its likelihood and importance we have to weigh its costs. We have been told the estimate for the ships (£4bn), but even if it holds good there is more to a carrier force than that.

Does it cover all the operational outfitting? Would new infrastructure, such as deeper-dredged harbours, be needed? Would there still, without these ships, be the same numbers and types of aircraft bought, with similar equipment, training costs and wastage allowance? Would there be no inroads upon personnel and supporting vessels for other tasks? Would there be no opportunity costs bearing down on the already impaired size and readiness of the destroyer and frigate fleet - upon which the carriers themselves would place demands?

Abandoning the carriers would be painful for the Royal Navy, constituency and industrial interests and procurement relationships with France. But in hard times for defence these are secondary considerations.

The prime criterion must be strategic utility as compared with alternative resource uses (including perhaps big ships to deploy helicopters, unmanned air vehicles and logistic and communications support). There is a case to answer.

Sir Michael Quinlan was permanent undersecretary of state at the Ministry of Defence 1988-92

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

[flycookie]

corsair67 said:

I wonder how much they charge per night for accomodation? ;D

"Tired after a long mission, or just looking for somewhere to get away from it all after combat? Well here at HMS Illustrious we offer four and a half star (AA) accomodation: sit back and relax with a cocktail while our experienced mechanics perform an engine change on your steed, or a simple wash of the windscreen, if that's all you'd prefer instead.

Call 555 RN G-o-t-N-o-P-l-a-n-e-s to book for this once in a lifetime experience."

FlyCookie: Corsair67, I think you must be a latent USMC Harrier driver!

Apart from that, the quotes from the Marine pilots re launch and recovery on Lusty compared to USN stovl flattops is interesting. I'm actually surprised they were allowed to go to press with these, along with the thinly veiled frustration they have with the USN and getting ski-jumps.

--------------------------

www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/08/marine_lustymain_070805/

Marines experience Brit style on 'Lusty'

By Vago Muradian - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Aug 8, 2007 5:41:53 EDT


ABOARD HMS ILLUSTRIOUS — What's the definition of heaven if you're a
Marine Harrier pilot? Why, spending two weeks on one of Britain's aircraft
carriers, of course.

"What's not to like? The flying's awesome, the food and quarters are great, and you
can get a drink at the end of the day," said Maj. Stephan "Poppy" Bradicich, the
executive officer of Marine Attack Squadron 542 who helped plan the
unprecedented embarkation of 16 Harriers and 200 Marines aboard HMS
Illustrious, known as "Lusty" to its crew.

The largest-ever embark of Marine personnel and aircraft aboard a foreign warship
July 15-31 was part of Joint Task Force Exercise Operation Bold Step 07-02 that
included the Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower strike groups, to prepare
Truman for its upcoming deployment.

The accommodations and food drew high marks from the Marines. They enjoyed
everything from curry night to such traditional Royal Navy dishes as "hammy eggy
cheesy" — toast layered with shredded ham, an egg and covered with melted cheese
— and kippered herrings along with eggs, bacon and beans for breakfast, or haggis
and bashed neeps — mashed turnips — for dinner. The ship even features "Chips at
Six" — fresh french fries served in the bar before dinner.

Other pluses? A roomy, teak quarterdeck aft to take a quiet break or take in a
sunset, beautifully varnished wooden ladders and generous carpeting — which are
stripped when the ship goes into battle — and Internet connectivity that works
every time.

But one of the most satisfying things is that the ship is a strike carrier where
Harriers, not helicopters, are the priority.

"This is the Royal Navy's A team, and they live and breathe strike," said Col. Eric
"Beans" Van Camp, the commanding officer of Marine Aircraft Group 14, who also
commanded the U.S. air group aboard Illustrious. "On a gator, the Harriers are
secondary to the amphibious and helicopter mission."

Then there is the piece de resistance, the 20-foot-long blond oak bar that is the
centerpiece of a spacious lounge, part of the wardroom annex where off-duty
officers can draw a pint, dram, cocktail, coffee or tea and reflect on the day and
prepare for tomorrow.

"Everyone's working really hard, but it's also OK to relax afterward with a beer,
within the rules we live by," Van Camp said. "The challenge is maintaining that
balance between mission and safety."

If you're flying the next day, you're not drinking, nor are you staying up late,
Bradicich said as he sipped a soft drink.

"It's a great tool that we don't have," Bradicich said. "On our ships, there's no place
where you can really unwind, get to know your shipmates on a personal level, and
solve disagreements. Our view is that if you have free time, you should be doing
something other than hanging around. Here, everyone works just as hard, but they
also know how to unwind. It's a huge philosophical difference."

That philosophical difference manifests in the relaxed atmosphere aboard the ship,
including the relationship between officers and ratings — British for enlisted
personnel.

Case in point? Expect a cheery "good morning" as you make your way down the
passage or an offer for help if you look lost. And in a welcome relief for the
American contingent, the 1MC system doesn't crackle with announcements 24
hours a day, and the officers don't carry radios to contact one another or the
captain.

"When you have a third of the ship asleep at any given time, it doesn't make much
sense to be waking them by blaring unnecessary announcements every few
minutes," one British officer said.

In fact, the only announcement is from the operations center that details the day's
plan and tests important alarms. The only other time you hear the loudspeaker is
when there's a problem, such as a fire or engineering casualty.


And why don't the officers carry radios like their American counterparts? "What the
bloody hell do you need a radio for?" the British officer asked. "You know the plan,
what the captain's intentions and expectations are. As an officer, your job is to lead,
and if you need to talk to the captain all the time, then you're not doing your job or
letting him do his."

Another philosophical difference is that the British are open to ideas that to
Americans seem goofy, but work, such as the 12-degree ramp at the bow of the ship
that dramatically improves Harrier operations. Senior U.S. naval officers over the
decades have vetoed the idea, saying they don't like how it looks and that it takes up
three helicopter landing spots. British and Marine officers say only one deck spot is
lost to the "ski jump."



To a man, Marine pilots want the ramps installed on their ships to improve
operational flexibility and safety.

"We're all in love with the ski ramp because when you come off that ramp, you're
flying," Bradicich said. "From our ships, if you're fully loaded, you need 750 feet,
and even then you've got some sink once you clear the deck. Here, you can do the
same thing in 450 feet and you're climbing."

But the ramp is intimidating at first sight, pilots said.

"I expected it to be violent, but when you take off, it's almost a non-event," said
Maj. Grant "Postal" Pennington, a pilot with VMA-513 at Marine Corps Air Station
Yuma, Ariz. "Up you go, and you're climbing. It's a great experience."

Equally important is the ship that's bolted to the ramp, pilots said.

"Some of our younger guys who haven't flown from our ships yet are in for a big
surprise when they do," Bradicich said. "This is probably the best ship you could
possibly fly a Harrier from. It's not very big, but it's really stable, no roll, just a little
pitch, not like the flat-bottom gators that roll so much. You've got the island
moving 30 feet in each direction when you're trying to land. That tends to get your
attention."

The combination of ski ramp, stability and dedicated crew contributed to a
breakneck operational pace. The Marines proudly logged a ship record 79 takeoffs
and landings in one day.

"These guys are great. We've qualed 28 guys in three days, most with eight landings
and takeoffs, so even though we said that we were going to crawl, walk, run, our
pace has been tremendous, even with different procedures," Pennington said. "We
like to approach the ship at 45 degrees and hit one of the spots, but they approach
from dead astern, come to a hover abeam, slide over, then drop down to the deck.
It's different, but you get the hang of it."

The only downside? "The thought that we're going to have to get off," Bradicich
said.


USMC AV8B Harriers ranged on the flight deck of HMS Illustrious.

[FlyNavy]

On behalf of 'FliedLiceCrumbly' here is some info on USMC Harriers recently HMS Illustrious with a piccy of the Hairier Landing Light System:

www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/photo/illustrious/

[flycookie]

Why, FlyNavy, I never knew you were a disciple of impressionistic brushstroke techniques!

Here's another pic of the RN "DAPS" meatball setup, sans Monet. At least I think it is. Don't quote me.

The idea seems to be for the pilot to get the meatball in the middle with wings slightly tilted (angle unknown) while in the alongside relative hover.



Here's the DAPS doodad on Invincible at night. Meatball must have hoofed off to "Chips at Six" and a G&T, or something.



Same doodad on Vince in the daylight, while the LSO was varnishing his nails rather than hit the 'on' switch and dead-eye a birdie onto the deck.



Next pic is of Illustrious as seen (last year) from a helo on approach. Meatball datum lights highly visible under Flyco.

I have no idea if this altitude and angle of final approach was similar to that for Sea Harriers, and the widely available clips of Harrier vertical DLs aren't very helpful for this sort of assessment. From the little I've read, it seems the poms used a very different approach and meatball landing system for their DLs than the USMC on to their 'gator' stovltops.

Although the proposed RAN stovltops are longer than the Invincible class, this pic seems a good indicator of what navy and army helo drivers will see and work with for the DLs.



In better visibility on a different day, years before - that's a Sea Harrier, so it's pre-2006.



And anothery, on Illustrious.

[FlyNavy]

As explained by Ye Olde Navvie here is the annotated Marine's Head. Notice the red "GO" light for the Gyrenes.

[flycookie]

FlyCookie: Flicked thru the FT on the way both to and fro work today, but somehow missed this until I chucked it in the bin at home and the page with the headline flopped over the side.

French Prez Sarko is due for a tres uber doober posh visit to London next month, and I guess there may well be a joint announcement on the ships at that time. Two as stovltop for the poms, one as second conventional hull for the frogs.

For another recent news update on the F-35B, with pic, go to rnzaf.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=world&action=display&thread=1205495786


www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3df99a6c-f9f8-11dc-9b7c-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

Fighter aircraft to miss the boat

By Sylvia Pfeifer, Defence Industries Correspondent

Published: March 25 2008 01:59 | Last updated: March 25 2008 01:59


Early next month, ministers in Britain are expected to give the final go-ahead for two new £4bn ($7.9bn) aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy. The 65,000 tonne ships will be the most powerful ever to sail in the navy but there is growing concern that delays to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme in the US mean they will be setting out to sea without their intended aircraft.

The first of the navy’s two new carriers is due to enter service in 2014. The government had planned to operate the JSF from the ships. However, it emerged this year the navy would initially have to operate the latest version of the Harrier jump jet, developed decades ago.

“We actually do plan to use the (Harrier) GR9 on the first of the carriers. The idea that we will have a carrier’s worth of fully equipped JSFs in 2014 is not going to happen,” said David Gould, chief operating officer for equipment and support at the Ministry of Defence.

The $299bn (£150bn) JSF programme, recently re-named the F-35 Lightning II, is the most expensive armaments programme ever. Midway through development, however, it still needs to clear important hurdles.

This month, congressional auditors in the US warned the programme was “over cost and behind schedule”. In its report, the Government Accountability Office warned that procurement costs were up to $38bn over budget and the development schedule likely to slip from 12 to 27 months.

The JSF is billed as an aircraft that will transform military aviation. Once in service, it will become the primary fighter for the navy, the air force and the Marine Corps, replacing the F/A-18 Hornet, the F-16 and Harrier respectively.

In practice it is three similar fighters. First, to be bought by the US air force and most allies, is a conventional fighter designed for standard airstrips. The second is for the US navy, while the third is a “jump jet”, modelled on the Harrier. This third version – known as “Stovl”, for Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing – will be used by the US marines and the UK’s RAF and Royal Navy.

But given its size and complexity, there have been persistent concerns as to whether Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for the programme, will be able to deliver on time and on budget. In the UK, defence analysts have in the past suggested a naval version of the Eurofighter Typhoon as an alternative to the JSF on the carriers.

Lockheed Martin insists a US Department of Defense study due to be published next month will provide a more accurate picture of the state of the programme than the recent GAO report.

The company says the first Stovl aircraft will fly this summer as planned, despite recent problems with the engine. “There will be no significant delay,” it said.

Giving testimony to Congress this month, John Young, the top Pentagon acquisitions official, said: “We are trying very hard to deliver the Joint Strike Fighter within the budget. We have had some challenges. The company has not met schedules in the past. We have made choices and continue to manage.”

Senior industry executives in the UK say privately they are concerned the project is still less than 10 per cent through its test flight programme.

The number of test aircraft has also recently been reduced by two.

Lockheed Martin says it is conducting “one of the most robust flight test programmes in history”.

It will have seven aircraft flying next year: “When you have seven or so flying all at the same time, you are really knocking off test points.”

In the UK, the MoD’s budget pressures, combined with concerns unit costs of the aircraft will increase, has led to speculation Britain will not buy the full complement of 150 first intended.

This year, General Sir Kevin O’Donoghue, chief of defence materiel, admitted the eventual number would depend on the final price, yet to be decided.

Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis, said: “This is the first in the cuts in the JSF offtake. We will see more in the next three years.”

[FlyNavy]

Won't the delay in paying for the delayed STOVL JSF help UK defence budget problems by delaying payment. Or is that one delay too many? (NOT authored by Tom DeLay of US Congress.) ;D

[flycookie]

Recently declassified UK MoD images reveal that the Royal Navy conducted feasibility tests on a proposed fast-jet/submarine combo.

The tests were not a success.











www.davebellamy.co.uk/crashed_sea_harrier.htm

+++ Royal Navy Sea Harrier FA2 lying submerged in the River Yeo after over-running the runway at RNAS Yeovilton.

It happened on the 10th October 2001, when Sqn Ldr Spon Clayton over-ran runway 22. He ejected safely, but the Harrier continued on through a fence and came to rest in the River Yeo. The Environment Agency were a bit freaked out, because of the jet fuel which inevitably ended up in one of Somerset's most important rivers.

Story as told by the attending fire crew here

I tried to find out whether it was repaired and returned to flight or not. Rather confusingly, all I can find is two different aircraft wearing the same "122" markings. One is now the Gate Guardian at RNAS Yeovilton, which does seem sensible. The other was flying as recently as March 2004, which seems less likely.


Edit: 18th July 2007, 12:06 am: It turns out that the "122" on the side of the aircraft just means that it belongs to 800 Squadron RN. Quite why they don't paint "800" instead of "122" I can't imagine. A picture of the same plane, as an FRS1 Sea Harrier, (before it was rebuilt as the FA2 version seen here) embarked on an unknown carrier can be seen here.

Incidentally, the story linked above mentions the "threshold of Runway 04". But in order to over-run the end of it, Sqn Ldr Clayton must have been using Runway 22 (the same runway, but the opposite direction). Runway 04/22 is the much shorter, SW-NE runway, not the main 09/27 runway where we were treated to this incredible sight at air show arrivals in June 2006.+++

[oldnavy]

The pilot of the submarine SHAR was an ex-Crab! He was only trying to get in with the Navy way/ethos. Took it a tiny bit too far, retired quickly and became an airline pilot! Stroppy character, but a nice bloke...even when wet!

[flycookie]

HMS Illustrious finally escaped the UK and picked up her GR9 Harriers in the Indian Ocean.

The crew must be puzzled at the sight of actual British aircraft on deck.

Following vid news from the BBC.

news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7340000/newsid_7341000/7341047.stm?bw=nb&mp=wm&news=1&ms3=6&ms_javascript=true&bbcws=2



Bonus news vid of HMS Invincible ops from the 80s here.

Harrier and helo fellas have to deal with the strangest questions and comments re night navigation ever posed before a TV camera. Highly, highly amusing!

www.veoh.com/videos/v284202maTycm4h


Extra bonus way cool in-cockpit rear view pic of ski-jump launch here. Note the blinding, retro-70s orange overalls.

[FlyNavy]

Inventor of F35B Stovlie engine tells all:


&
Huvvering the reverse Hoover:

&
Results of inventive inventor:

[flycookie]

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ddf2570a-2641-11dd-9c95-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1


Image Royal Navy Official

MoD gives go-ahead to £4bn carrier project


By Sylvia Pfeifer, Defence Industries Correspondent
Published: May 20 2008 08:58 | Last updated: May 20 2008 12:03

The Ministry of Defence on Tuesday gave the go-ahead for two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy, a move that safeguards some 10,000 jobs in Britain’s shipyards.

The long-delayed announcement, however, stopped short of awarding a £4bn manufacturing contract for the 65,000-tonne vessels, although that is expected to follow by the end of June.

Des Brown, defence secretary, said in a statement: “This is an important day for the project and I am delighted that we are moving closer to signing the contract for the manufacture of the carriers”.

The aircraft carriers, to be named the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales, will be the most powerful ships ever to sail in the Royal Navy.

The statement paves the way for BAE Systems and VT Group to put their shipyards at Govan and Scotstoun, in Scotland, and in Portsmouth, on England’s south coast into a joint venture called BVT. BAE will hold 55 per cent of the merged entity, with VT the rest. The two companies run a 50:50 joint venture, Flagship Training, which will revert to VT’s control.

The two companies have been in talks to form the venture for almost a year but had made clear to the government that its formation was dependent on receiving a manufacturing contract for the carriers. The joint venture needs to be formed before the contract can be placed.

The commitment by the MoD to the programme ends months of uncertainty. The government had been expected to place the contract at the end of last year but this has been delayed as the department has grappled with an estimated £2bn budget shortfall. Officials have been at loggerheads over how to balance the books, with some convinced that one big defence acquisition, such as the carriers, must be scrapped.

To break the deadlock and allow the carriers to go ahead, Gordon Brown, prime minister, last week agreed to let the MoD free up hundreds of millions of pounds by breaking one of its main accounting rules.

Under the accounting changes, defence officials will be able to move some funds between the three years of the Comprehensive Spending Review and use money allocated for annual capital spending for resource spending. This freedom will allow officials more easily to delay, cancel or reconfigure commitments.

However, in return the MoD has been forced to order a ”no-holds-barred” look at other defence projects in a move that will create new uncertainty over other contracts. The ”examination of the defence equipment programme” will be a ”short and sharp” process to prioritise frontline needs and squeeze savings from industry, according to defence sources.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

FlyCookie: Also see this thread - rnzaf.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=world&action=display&thread=6040

[FlyNavy]

[flycookie]

Mar 6, 2008 15:39:12 GMT 12 @flycookie said:

Next pic is of Lusty as seen from a helo on approach. Meatball datum lights highly visible under Flyco.

I have no idea if this altitude and angle of final approach are similar to that for (Sea) Harriers, and the widely available clips of Harrier DLs aren't very helpful for this sort of assessment. From the little I've read, it seems the poms used a very different approach and meatball landing system for their DLs than the USMC.

Here's a goodish detailed description of Marine AV-8 DLs. This, I'm guessing, would also be the procedure used by USMC indoctrinated STOVL operators (ie Spain and Italy).

The approach used by poms was/is a very different.

++++++++++++++++++

www.thefreelibrary.com/Marine+Corps+Harriers:+Expeditionary+firepower+from+the+sea-a087374258



In a typical daytime approach and landing in the AV-8B, Harrier pilots follow a sequence during the landing process that is not unlike that of their Navy brethren on the carrier. The primary difference is that there is one additional control lever, and the intent is to "stop and Land" rather than "land and stop." The ability to stop and land provides first-pass boarding rates near 100 percent and allows the routine use of night-vision goggles for night recoveries.


Former VMA-542 skipper Lt. Col. Eric VanCamp described the steps a Harrier pilot goes through to land aboard ship: "The AV-8B pilot approaches the ship at 800 feet and 350 knots. Passing close up the right side of the ship, the pilot extends roughly 10 seconds and snaps the stick to the left, rolling the jet into a 4- to 6-0 turn. Simultaneously, the pilot pulls the throttle to idle with the left hand and then moves the exhaust nozzle lever to the 60-degree position while easing off the turn.


"Rolling wings level on the downwind leg (opposite direction of initial heading), the pilot descends to 600 feet above ground level. As the aircraft decelerates through 300 knots, the pilot moves the flap switch to the short-takeoff-and-landing position, which causes the flaps to automatically program with nozzle position once the airspeed goes below 165 knots. The pilot extends the landing gear at 250 knots or less, and adds power sufficient to maintain on-speed flight at about 110 knots.


"The engine water injection switch is then moved to the landing position allowing for added thrust if needed. During takeoffs and landings, water can be injected into the turbine section of the AV-8B's engine to provide an additional 1,500 pounds of thrust if required.


"Continuing the turn, the pilot descends to 450 to 500 feet above ground level behind the ship--referred to as 'rolling into the groove'--on a line running up the left side of the ship until the jet is at 300 feet above the water. The pilot makes a 'hover-stop' call to the landing signal officer [LSO], who helps talk the pilot down to a safe landing. At this point, the pilot smoothly slides the nozzle lever to hover-stop. This moves the nozzles 90 degrees pointing downward. The pilot then adds power as necessary to maintain glideslope position as indicated on the tower's optical landing system. The pilot controls the deceleration rate by slightly adjusting the attitude of the Harrier's nose. The jet is now alongside the intended point of landing, a mere 120 feet over the water and just 60 feet above the deck of the ship. The LSO says 'clear to cross' and the pilot moves the jet sideways to a hover over the designated spot. Once stabilized in the hover, the LSO clears the pilot to land and the pilot eases gent ly down and chops the throttles to idle. From this point the nozzles are moved to aft and the jet taxies as directed by the flight director."